What’s The Matter With Indiana? Sadly, Religion

[Warren Stupidity]

Bigotry masquerading as religious freedom: that, many say, was Indiana’s law allowing businesses to turn away customers they find objectionable on religious grounds. Clearly targeting gay people, the law, declared one op-ed writer, invoked religious freedom as a “veil for intolerance.” The New York Times deems the law a “cover for discrimination.” The implication is that religion was a lovely fig leaf concealing ugly malice.

As a churchgoer, it grieves me to say that this lets religion off too easily. It was not a fig leaf but rather the root, the cause of the prejudice behind the law.

It’s true that theology has conservative and liberal schools of thought, with the latter affirming the humanity of all people. But the conservative Christians backing Indiana’s law doubtless are sincere in believing homosexuality a sin, and they can cite Scripture supporting their case. Yet they’re wrong that law should protect faith-based homophobia. It shouldn’t. (And didn’t: Indiana’s leadership, bowing to business protests, hastily scrubbed their statute of its anti-gay potential, while Arkansas’s governor walked back a similar law there.)

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2015/04/07/indiana-law-religion-prejudice-rich-barlow

Duh.

[nil desperandum]

1. Next

it would be appropriate for many states to revisit their own public accommodation laws as gays are often not listed as a protected class under those statutes....

Indiana's current public accommodation law doesn't protect gays from discrimination through denial of services or goods.

I was thinking they were looking to enact the RFRA to keep anyone from litigating these cases under the equal protections clauses as there was not and is not any way to litigate under current public accommodation laws in Indiana.

Appropriate to keep the pressure on.

[rhett o rick]

2. What I haven't seen discussed about the Indiana law is the fact that as written

is not limited to the LGBT community. The law gives anyone the right to refuse anyone of service. It essentially supersedes the accommodation laws that are intended to protect specific groups of people. Here's an example: Say that a particular businessperson wants to refuse service to members of the black community. All he has to do it claim he thinks they are gay and he is within his rights per the law. He doesn't have to prove that he thinks they are gay, he can decide on his own.

I think that in the states that allow discrimination against the LGBT community, the progressive non-gays should wear badges identifying themselves as gay. That way they would know when a business is bigoted and then they can go elsewhere.

[mountain grammy]

3. Bans on gay marriage are 100% religious based and a clear violation of the 1st amendment

as are laws restricting abortion. These are completely secular issues and religion should not be involved. If the first amendment was adhered to in America, marriage equality wouldn't be an issue and a woman would have the right to go to a doctor of her choosing for a medical procedure that is her decision alone.

No citizen can be forced to marry someone of the same sex, no woman can be forced to have an abortion. Those are the only two restrictions necessary in these areas.